Dan56

That's correct, "dome" only appears in one bible version ( NASB ), that's because its a bad translation of Amos 9:6. I wasn't nitpicking, but just saying that “poisoners” was a bad English translation of Exodus 22:18; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".. A female sorceress is a witch, not a poisoner.. That law was only applicable to the Hebrews, God did not want witches/sorcery to pollute His people, but it was not an order to kill all witches, just those dwelling among them.... So my God has not commanded me to kill anyone.

"And as I said; "because your know I'm right" (Just to be clear, when I previously wrote; "Atheist believe in nothing", I was referring specifically to deity, gods, etc...)

All Christians follow a bible, but their faith isn't based on the date a bible was published. And despite what the Catholic's might say, that religion didn't exist at Pentecost. Keep in mind that Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope too, but he wasn't. Also consider that there's no biblical record of Peter ever going to Rome..Paul was the first to go to Rome, he was imprisoned for 2 years prior to being decapitated. When I say my faith, I'm not referring to any specific denomination. My faith is in the teachings of Christ, not on any religion that was organized post Christ. And no where in the New Testament is Catholicism mentioned or described.

Nonsense... Your not that deep, you think the existence of God/deity is unknowable (agnosticism) and you don't care (apatheism), which is more of an attitude than a belief.. Not to be redundant, but there's absolutely nothing complicated about it... I've notice that you continue to resist telling me where I'm wrong, because your know I'm right. A female sorcerer is a witch.

The correct translation is, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18). The verse clearly refers to people who practice sorcery, not to “poisoners”. There is only one verse where the word "dome" actually appears in English translations of the Bible, but it is only found in the NASB version, and its a bad translation of Amos 9:6. A good concordance will give you the definition of the Hebrew word used in verses like these.. So its a simple matter to cross check the correct English translation. You've described yourself as Agnostic, so it doesn't take a genius to define that, and I've done it several times now. You've also mentioned Apatheist, which just describes the general mentality of those who don't care for religion or the existence of a deity.. I've listened, and you've written nothing that deviates from what I've defined, so there's no need for me to 'get a little closer' when I've been spot-on.

Nothing convenient about it, the RCC is not my religion, nor does that church predate my faith.. I don't celebrate anything on Dec 25th, so there's no complicity after the fact. My whole point wasn't the holiday itself, but that the satanic statue was simply an effort to protest a holiday of a religion that they don't like.

As I've stated in another thread, I don't believe the birth date assigned to Christ was correct, I think he was born 9/28/ 04 b.c... So yes, I agree that Dec 25 wasn't a random date, the Roman Catholics decided to christianize that pagan holiday starting in 336 A.D.. That's not my religion, nor do I personally get into all of the Christmas crap, its just an end of the year Santa Claus day to me, but then again, I don't believe St Nick was any Saint either.

Yes, I do...... I trust the bible was accurately preserved and the events it describes are historically correct. You guys seem to only trust what you can see and hear, but consider that there could be more to life than what you can comprehend and rationalize here and now. The bible answers everything you don't know, and that's a lot. Everyone ask; What's it all about and why am I here? Atheist reject the answer and Agnostics are content to remain clueless. If you believe God created the universe, then believing Moses parted the Red Sea isn't so inconceivable or hard to believe. When studied and understood, the bible is the only credible answer I've found that answers and explains life's most fundamental questions, and those answers give a person purpose and peace of mind. To believe that the universe came into existence by accident, and that the complexities of DNA, eyesight, and everything else just randomly evolved from nothing, is more inconceivable than accepting that intelligent design had to have put it all together. Only one planet among billions has life, how anyone chalks that up to coincident is beyond me? People believe in God because every other explanation is absurd, its takes more faith to believe that we came into existence from nothing than it does to accept a creative force. I personally believe the KJV is the most accurate, I've only found a couple Hebrew words that were not translated into the best English, for instance in Acts 12:4 Pascha means Passover, not Easter.. But those are easily looked-up to get a more definitive Hebrew or Greek definition. I believe the originals were accurately copied into the same language, but there aren't always exact words to translate the meaning from one language to another, and some words can have multiple meanings, so they must be defined in the context of what's being written and expressed.. Where no direct word for word translation is possible, its necessary to transliterate using the closest corresponding words.

That's correct, it didn't disrupt or impede the traditional Christian holiday, but I think the motive was a deliberate attempt to tick-off Christians.. Its harder to believe that it was just a coincidence that these honorable Satanist had a genuine desire to celebrate something simultaneously.. Its kind of like someone going to a Fourth of July celebration and burning the flag. Likewise, I believe the Satanic symbol was simply placed there as a demonstration against Christianity.

You are correct that there can be no absolute proof since no originals exist.. However, I do believe there's credible evidence which strongly suggest the originals have been accurately copied and have not been altered in any meaningful way.

Imo, the nativity scene celebrates a specific event at a specific time (holiday), while the opposing statue celebrated no religious holiday. So while I agree that the Satanic statue has an equal right to be displayed and did not interrupt a Christian holiday, I suspect its real purpose was to disrupt a celebrated Christian event. So while Christmas was unimpeded, it seemed obvious that the satanic groups intent was intended to pollute and oppose a holiday they detest.. That's just my take on it.

As I said, I doubt that any amount of evidence would suffice for you.... Well over 5000 NT manuscripts, and you believe all of those copies are wrong... You think that +5000 scribes all screwed-up and were incapable of accurately copying a few books? Imo, it requires more faith to believe that thousands of copyist were all incompetent than it does to believe the majority got it right. I reckon we all think our position is right.. I think most people want to believe in something, but some want absolute undeniable confirmation before they'll accept the possibility that something could be true.. Frustration sets in when they don't get unquestionable proof, so they attack what can't be substantiated to their satisfaction. From all you've written, your understanding is limited to what you can see and touch.. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

As I previously mentioned, the new testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous (+5000), they can be cross-checked for accuracy, and they are very consistent. Its funny how nonbelievers dismiss the accuracy of the most widely documented writings of the new testament, while accepting the reliability of comparable ancient writings like Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and other authors.. I have a hunch that even if you had the original manuscripts, you wouldn't believe them anyhow, so your essentially demanding proof of something you've dismissed as false?

I've made different points in response to different questions in regards to evidence.. Yes, I've stated that there may not be any objective evidence, but I've also said that I believe there is plenty of subjective evidence, i.e; archeological, prophetic, creation, witnesses, etc.. I've also stated that in the absence of direct physical evidence, Christians are called by faith. I don't see any of that as being inconsistent or contradictory. For me, there is evidence, but belief is also required. And again, all I can say is that I never used the word "persecuted" because the word wasn't applicable. But if for some reason you feel that I meant or implied that Christians were being persecuted by satanic symbolism, there's nothing I can say about that except that I'm not even offended by such things, let alone feel persecuted by it. My only point was that the purpose of statues like that being placed next to a nativity scene was to irritate & interfere with a Christian holiday.

Look at the definition you posted and compare it to what I wrote about persecution. As a Christian, I don't consider a Satanic statue as persecuting, it inflicts no pain or suffering, distress or hardship, distress or sorrow... Its simply an effort to irk and annoy Christians, so I don't feel persecuted by it, nor have I tried to redefine or mislead you about the definition of "persecute". When someone is chasing me with a baseball bat, I'll feel persecuted. I answer every question directly, your only argument is that I'm "misleading" because you have no other argument. I said that I never wrote that I was persecuted and you claimed that I did. Then you claimed that being annoyed or irked about something insinuated "persecution". That's you being misleading.. And as far as anyone correcting me on my definition of Atheist or Agnostic, that never happened because I posted the correct definition and there was nothing to correct. Here it is again, and I encourage you to correct me if I'm wrong; AGNOSTIC - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.... ATHEISM - the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.or the absence of belief that any deities exist.. Nothing complicated about that. Your present false accusations about my comments, and that is generally indicative of someone who has no answers of their own or has lost another argument. I never said that my biblical interpretation about everything was correct, but its my opinion of what means what. Disagree if you want, but I suspect that your accusation that I deliberately obfuscate conversations is more of a case of you guys not understanding the depth of the book I'm discussing, and that leaves you frustrated and angry.

Since you can't command someone to believe, it must be a choice.. I don't believe in Islam, that's my choice. Something is not mistranslated because you don't understand it or take it out of context. The Holy Spirit doesn't dwell in nonbelievers (John 14: 16-17). Jesus was not delivering a message to nonbelievers in Matthew 12; 31. Only a person convicted of the Holy Spirit can commit blasphemy against it.. "Men" is not being used in the generic sense, meaning all of mankind, but In the context of who Christ was addressing. No, that's forgivable.. Blasphemy is denying and refusing the Holy Spirit.. "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." (Luke 12: 11-12). This can only be applicable to Christians. Happy New Year gentlemen

Correct, just as God supplies the apples for a pie, He supplies the Word for scripture.. And I personally don't believe the forbidden fruit was an apple. Correct... Try translating old Hebrew into over 1500 different languages, in fact, try translating anything into +1500 languages and I guarantee you'll run into some translation issues since there aren't exact corresponding words to express and match everything word for word from language to language, so it requires some transliteration. As I previously explained, when you have over 5000 manuscripts, its not hard to evaluate and know where copyist errors may have occurred. So I'm convinced that today's bible is near perfect from what was originally written, the dead sea scrolls proved that. The Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea caves has been dated to around 200 B.C.. Isaiah wrote his original scroll around 700 B.C. and it may have been in use up until around 200 B.C. This means that it is possible for the Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea caves to be a copy made directly from Isaiah's original scroll. And more important, the Isaiah scroll found there proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible used today, with just slight spelling variations. How's that for accuracy? You do have knowledge of His law, Jesus summarized it with just two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).. And nearly everyone has knowledge of the gospel since its been published throughout the world. You may not have accepted it into your heart, but I believe those verses in Jeremiah were referring to believers, you need to accept a message before it can be heartfelt I've been consistent in stating that I believe the original writings were mistake proof. And I've also been consistent in saying that scribal errors are easily detected.

That's true, me believing that something is true doesn't make it so.. And its no crime to question everything, in fact its a wise thing to do; "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Imo, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is only something a Christian can do, its unforgivable because it would be a direct and blatant offense by an enlightened person. And I don't think your capable of changing your mind because you reject belief, which is a choice Christians are called to make. Without direct physical indisputable evidence, you won't consider the possibility that something is true. "Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Perhaps "mediocre" was a poor choice of word for me to use... But the point I was trying to emphasize was that God delegates task to His servants.. I didn't mean to imply that the scriptures were of mediocre importance, but only that God assigned certain people to accomplish a job that they could easily do.. And of course, I believe "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), so I don't believe the writers were fallible.

Well, to me "hostility and ill-treatment" isn't the same as "irk, interfere, or annoy".. I suppose there are different degree's of what persecution might entail, but I don't interpret a Satanic statue as an act of hostility or ill-treatment.. To me, persecution is a hostile physical act, and ill-treatment is when someone is subjected to harm or violence, e.g; Jesus was persecuted, they attempted to stone him, had him flogged, and crucified. But I don't personally consider mere words or religious symbols as a form of persecution.

There's nothing mediocre about the Word itself, but the task of writing it down was given to His prophets and apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God doesn't perform mediocre task, He inspired the Word to those who wrote it.. Just as He provides apples, but doesn't pick the apples & bake you a pie.. So of course God doesn't "need" help, but uses people to spread His inspired word. Faith could not be demonstrated if God did everything.. Jesus performed the miracle of five loaves and the two fishes, but had his disciples feed the crowd, just as he brought the gospel, but assigned the apostles to carry and spread the message.

My point was that by faith, we prove (demonstrate) our belief in God.. It would be difficult to glorify God if you have no faith. Jesus said, 'whosoever believeth, who keeps my commandments, etc' .. That's all I meant... And I do agree, that the Truth is the truth whether a person acknowledges it or not.

My point was that no evidence and no proof would make you believe what you've already decided is false. If Christ appeared right in front of you and performed a miracle, you wouldn't believe it.. You would instead search for an explanation of what you witnessed in order to rationalize to yourself how it could have happened. The color of my house was inerrant, not the scriptures. The salvation of billions rest on their faith, not proof that satisfies their curiosity. Consider that we are here to prove ourselves to God, not vice versa. A person who hears/reads the story of Christ and rejects it, is more likely looking for something else. If you don't believe Christ was/is the Truth, your left to concoct your own version of what's true..

Yes, for instance, we have thousand of copies of the NT, and if one of those copies had a verse that didn't conform to the same thing as the other thousands of copies, you would have detected an error.. By correlating and comparing the bulk of manuscripts, mistakes are easily noticed in individual copies, while the consensus establishes 100% proof of accuracy of the original writing. Because printing presses were not yet invented, so they couldn't deliver the written word like phone books, each copy had to be hand written...